“I Once Was Blind”

The Orlando shooting was first and foremost an act of jihad against all of us by a man who believed his religion required him to be at war with us. Not because of anything Bush did or anything Trump said, but simply because we are a secular, modern nation and his interpretation of Islam calls for restoring religious purity by ridding the world of secularism and modernity.

The father of modern Islamist radicalism, an Egyptian man named Sayyid Qutb, came to America in 1948 and returned to Egypt on a mission to rid Egypt of all secularism and modernity in an effort to restore his country to what he believed was a pure vision of Islam.
He wrote a book that inspired fellow Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, who joined Osama bin Laden as one of the two leaders of al-Qaeda and the masterminds of 9/11.

Now we have ISIS.

Islamist jihadists believe that the two biggest enemies of pure Islam are secularism and modernity, and they are at war with us because they see us as the #1 source of secularism and modernity.

The first 9/11 in 2001 was an act of war. The second 9/11 in Benghazi in 2012 was an act of war. The Boston Marathon bombing was an act of war. The Paris, San Bernardino, and Orlando shootings were acts of war.

Why do the Democrats think our response should be gun control measures that limit Americans’ ability to buy guns and defend ourselves?

The only way Islamist jihadists will lay down their weapons and be at peace with us is if we surrender our secularism and our modernity. What does that look like?

That means we become an Islamic country and return to life as it was in the time of their prophet. Their war will continue until we either do that, or win the war.

If #BlackLivesMatter, then Hillary Clinton should have to answer for this comment she made at a Planned Parenthood event in Houston in 2009.
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously.” -Hillary Clinton (see video)

Among many other racist comments, Sanger said:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Since we’re no longer operating under the U.S. Constitution as written and amended, I think it would be helpful for us to all understand the de facto “constitution” within which our federal government now operates.

All legislative power resides with the Congress, as long as that benefits Democrats. If it benefits Democrats for Congress to abdicate legislative power, or if it benefits Democrats to take additional powers beyond legislation, then the Congress can and will do so. In the event that Republicans control either or both chambers of Congress, all legislative powers will be voluntarily forfeited by bedwetting Republican leadership.

All executive power resides with the Executive Branch. If it benefits Democrats for the Executive Branch to either abdicate executive powers, or if benefits Democrats for the Executive Branch to take on legislative or judicial powers, then the Executive Branch can and will do so. In the event that a Republican wins the presidency, he will be portrayed as stupid and/or evil by Democrats and the media, which will justify ignoring and/or vilifying everything he or she says or does.

All judicial power resides with the mainstream media, excluding the “crazies” over at Fox News.

Because judicial power has been taken from the Supreme Court and given to the mainstream media, the Supreme Court can and will take legislative power when it benefits Democrats, especially when Democrats cannot push their agenda through Constitutionally prescribed means.

Every restraint in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as this “de facto constitution,” will be applied to Republicans, whereas if and when it benefits Democrats, then the peasantry outside of the D.C. political elite and the New York media elite must be reminded that the Founders were old, rich, white, slave-owning racists and that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that can be ignored whenever it benefits Democrats to do so.

“Postmodernists” have no moral foundation from which to criticize the church shooting in South Carolina, and this is another reason why postmodernism should die on the philosophical trash heap where it belongs.

If “all truth is relative,” and each person can determine which truth best suits him/her, then a psychotic racist who believes that black people are raping white women everywhere and “taking over our country” has every right to believe that – according to the postmodern perspective. Furthermore, following postmodernism to its logical conclusion, if you believe it is right and just and good to walk into a church and murder people because they have a certain skin color, then postmodernism says you have the right to “self-determination.” Who am I to say otherwise?

Thank God our just system is not yet fully postmodern.

But……………….. if there is such a thing as absolute truth, then we can make absolute truth claims such as:

It is wrong to go into a church and kill people.
It is wrong to kill people for having a certain skin color.
Etc., etc., etc.

If you are dumb enough to believe such nonsense as “you have your ‘truth’ and I have mine,” then you must hold the corollary position that the psychotic racist can have his “truth,” too. The reality is that all postmodernists are selective postmodernists. “Truths” they don’t like are relative, while “truths” they like are absolute.

“Truths” that keep you from stealing from your neighbor are bad, but “truths” that keep your neighbor from stealing from you are good.

People do not accept postmodernism because it is true, they accept postmodernism because it is a way to self-justify their sins. But there is only one true justification for sins, and it ain’t found in postmodernism.

I’m several chapters into “Clinton Cash,” and I think its most valuable asset is the author’s standard to which he measured Hillary Clinton’s actions in the book:

Her own words.

Hillary expressed concern about allowing foreign governments to purchase assets that are strategic to our national security, then changed course after huge donations were made to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches) by investors who would benefit when Hillary signed off on deals that gave Russia control over substantial portions of U.S. and global uranium output.

Hillary, and her husband, have been staunch supporters of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Bill Clinton was embarrassed when India violated the NPT. Years later, then-Senator Hillary Clinton spoke about the need to bring India into compliance with the NPT. However, after millions of Indian and Indo-American dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches), Hillary helped India to have their (yellow) cake and eat it to – aka retain nuclear weapon status while U.S. sanctions were lifted.

Hillary spoke out on the need to bring about reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and even co-authored a bill during her Senate tenure that gave the Secretary of State authority to demand human rights reforms in exchange for taxpayer aid dollars the DRC would receive. But rather than enforce the law she helped pass when she later became Secretary of State, Hillary gave the DRC a waiver so that it would not have to meet transparency and accountability requirements tied to U.S. aid dollars – after, you guessed it, millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation (and Bill gave a series of lucrative speeches).

“Clinton Cash” is a very significant book, and probably the most significant book for the 2016 presidential elections, because it shows how badly Hillary Clinton fails a standard of integrity. The integrity standard she fails is not mine or yours, but the standard set by her very own words.

When she professes to care about human rights, the poor and needy, etc., she should have to answer for the waivers she gave to the DRC and Ethiopia, so that they could continue to receive U.S. taxpayer money in spite of their horrendous human rights record, with zero transparency or accountability.

When she professes to care about equal pay for women, she should have to answer for paying women less than she paid men in her own offices.

When she talks about national security, she should have to answer for her actions which allowed Russia to gain control of U.S. uranium and allowed India to violate the NPT without consequence.

And she should have to give an account for her position changes on each of these issues, which just so happened to coincide with money flowing into the Clinton Foundation and into the Clintons’ personal accounts.

These are all reasons why you should read “Clinton Cash,” and they are reasons why Hillary should not be president of these United States.

The following is copied and pasted from this link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/those-daed-jews-jerry-d-hill?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST

A short time ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.

In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

“Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

“A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

“Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

“Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

Those who claim that the Civil War was not fought over slavery have to also claim that neither the Missouri Compromise nor the Kansas-Nebraska Act had anything to do with slavery.

The Missouri Compromise stated that Missouri would be allowed to enter the Union as a “slave state” on the condition that all future states above the “Missouri Compromise Line” would be “free states.” (in other words, the Missouri Compromise was entirely about slavery)

The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed Kansas and Nebraska to vote on whether to enter the Union as either slave or free states, in violation of the Missouri Compromise. (in other words, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was entirely about slavery)

Republican Senator Charles Sumner made a famous anti-slavery speech, was nearly beaten to death by a pro-slavery, Democratic congressman (known as “The Caning of Charles Sumner“), and the Republican Party was founded in response to the violation of the Missouri Compromise, which also violated the “balance of power” between free and slave states. (side note: the Republican Party was founded on two key platforms: the sanctity of life [regardless of skin color – aka abolishing slavery] and the sanctity of marriage [in opposition to polygamy, which apparently was gaining steam at the time]. Today, two key planks in the Republican Party platform remain the sanctity of life [from conception to natural death] and the sanctity of marriage)

Pro-slavery, southern Democrats sought to influence the vote in Kansas, killed some abolitionists, some abolitionists killed some pro-slavery folks, a Republican abolitionist was elected president (Lincoln), several southern, Democratic states seceded from the Union, the Civil War happened, the Union Army won, slavery was abolished, and the southern states rejoined the Union.

Yes, the Civil War was fought over “states’ rights.” Namely, states’ rights to determine whether they would have slavery or not. And yes, the Civil War was fought over economic issues. Namely, the economic impact abolishing slavery would have on plantation-heavy, slave states. But saying that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights and economic issues, rather than over slavery, is foolishness, because slavery was central to both the states’ rights and economic arguments that are peddled as alternative, non-slavery explanations for the War.

Anyway, one of my favorite parts of the story is this: the aforementioned Charles Sumner, who was nearly beaten to death after his anti-slavery speech, gave another speech after the Civil War. This speech welcomed the first black United States senator – Republican Hiram Revels from Mississippi – after he was confirmed with unanimous support from Senate Republicans over and against unanimous opposition from Senate Democrats.

If my political party’s history consisted of defending slavery, seceding from the Union over slavery, unanimously opposing the confirmation of the first black U.S. senator, creating the KKK, enacting the “Jim Crow laws,” poll taxes, literacy tests, etc., etc., etc., then I’d probably invent a myth about the two parties playing some magical, fairy dust game of political “red rover,” too.

I think that Ben Carson would make a fine president of the United States of America.

Dr. Carson is an incredibly intelligent, accomplished man who rose from humble beginnings to become the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

Dr. Carson is obviously intelligent, he seems to be very principled, and he garnered much conservative attention and praise for his 2013 keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast. I believe that a President Carson would be wise, humble, and confident enough to put the right people around him to both compliment his strengths and compensate for his weaknesses – which are most notably lack of military or political experience.

But I do not think that he will be President Carson, or at least not in 2016, because I do not think he can win the Republican primary. Here’s why:

The Republican Party is a coalition of people who are Republicans for different reasons, and I think Hugh Hewitt has a good paradigm for understanding this coalition with his “Six-Party System.” Hewitt identifies that the three key groups of Republicans are identified by their primary priority when it comes to politics and government: the Party of Faith, the Party of Wealth, and the Party of National Security. In 2006, Hewitt added that an Immigration and Border Security faction was growing, and I would add that there is now a growing libertarian wing in the GOP.

My two main concerns for Dr. Carson’s potential campaign are that 1) I think he will have little success winning votes outside of the Party of Faith crowd, and 2) there is an abundant supply of potential candidates vying for Party of Faith votes. Let’s look at how these five groups within the GOP – libertarians, immigration & border security, national security, wealth, and faith – may view Dr. Carson.

Assuming he runs, Senator Rand Paul will have a lock on the libertarian votes in the GOP primary, which fortunately for Sen. Paul represents a somewhat decent floor for his candidacy but unfortunately also represents most of its ceiling, in my opinion. Dr. Carson is likely to struggle with the libertarian wing of the GOP if he has to compete with Sen. Paul for their votes.

Immigration Enforcement and Border Security voters may give Dr. Carson a shot, but will likely be looking for a candidate with an applicable track record – which Dr. Carson simply does not have.

I think Dr. Carson would appoint a stellar Secretary of Defense and lean on a strong support team of military and foreign policy advisors, so that this potential weakness would be mitigated in his presidency. Dr. Carson has also demonstrated that he understands the threat of Islamic terrorism. However, I doubt Dr. Carson will be anywhere near the top of the list for GOP primary voters whose main concern is National Security, especially in the wake of the fiasco that has been the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy. Russia, China, Iran, Islamic terrorists, etc. have National Security Republicans begging for a strong Commander in Chief.

Party of Wealth voters will likely want a “known commodity” and support someone more along the Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush mold. Dr. Carson is simply not their guy.

All of which leaves Dr. Carson vying for votes in the Party of Faith crowd, potentially with the likes of Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, Santorum et al with all of the GOP candidates saying what the Party of Faith wants to hear and a chunk of Party of Faith voters looking to non-Party of Faith candidates for who will be the “most electable” option in November.

Therefore, I would put Dr. Carson’s chances in the 2016 GOP primary as “slim-to-none.” That said, I hope that he has a significant influence on the GOP primary, either as a candidate or with the field vying for his endorsement – either of which would benefit both the GOP and the country, and could also be an avenue toward a cabinet position such as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

“[The] notion that Selma was LBJ’s idea is jaw dropping and offensive to SNCC, SCLC and black citizens who made it so.” (SNCC stands for Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference)

In the movie “The Butler,” LBJ uses a “politically correct” term for blacks and Cuba Gooding, Jr.’s character says something like, “that dude says n****** more than I do,” in questioning why LBJ used a different term in a televised speech from his preferred off-camera term. LBJ also infamously said that his “Great Society” expansion of government would “have them n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Progressives have to defend LBJ, though, because his role in the Civil Rights era is essential to their myth that Democrats became the Civil Rights party in or around the 1960’s.

The confrontation between MLK and LBJ is one of many reasons that I am eager to see “Selma.”

Have you heard how badly the Democratic Party was crushed in the November elections this year?

There are now only seven states where the governor and both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats, compared to 24 states where Republicans control the state executive and legislative branches.

The Democrats have sold out to their big government, reckless spending, high taxes, and anti-business policies while focusing on a radical social agenda that goes against the values of most Americans. “We the People” came out in force last month and clearly rejected what the Democratic Party has become.